THE BEST PATH FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM

Almost by definition, compromise legislation is never perfect. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be a huge step forward. In the case of immigration reform, there is little question that the compromise fashioned by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators would be a monumental step toward fixing a profoundly broken system.

With the release last week of details of the reform package, activists on all sides of the issue were already citing provisions they don’t like. Immigration advocates on the left complained that the 13-year path to citizenship is too long. Those on the right complained that there should be no path to citizenship at all and that the increases in border security are too weak.

Which tells us that the so-called Gang of Eight senators who put together the hundreds of pages of legislation in private meetings over the last three months probably did a pretty good job.

Despite the vocal opposition to specific provisions, the overall bill has substantial support from organized labor, business and other key constituencies. It is believed this proposal has the best chance of enactment of any effort in more than a quarter-century.

The legislation would overhaul almost every major aspect of the immigration system.

It would improve border security, with billions more taxpayer dollars for surveillance drones, more customs agents and more fencing along the Southwest border. It would demand greater accountability by employers for the people they hire. It would rebuild the programs for legal immigration, shifting the emphasis from family ties to employment opportunities and immigrants’ skills. It would significantly expand visas for high-skilled immigrants with advanced degrees and for low-skilled workers and agricultural laborers.

Most important — and probably most controversial — it would allow most of the 11 million people already here without authorization to come out of the shadows and attain citizenship after 13 years, if they have a clean record and pay fines and any back taxes.

Is all this the perfect solution? Hardly. To cite one example, in our view a primary purpose of reform legislation should be to encourage the assimilation of newly legalized immigrants into the societal mainstream by encouraging citizenship. We fear the minimum 13-year wait will instead serve as disincentive to citizenship.

But it would be folly to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There are compromises all over this legislation, but not to the point of making it unworthy of passage.

Still, it is no shoo-in for enactment. This proposal, or something very close to it, is likely to pass the Senate. But it will be a tough slog in the House.

We believe this proposal would not be a repeat of the failed 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized some 1.8 million unauthorized immigrants but provided inadequate border security and employer sanctions. The flow of illegal immigration never stopped.

The immigration system is again in desperate need of overhaul. This bipartisan proposal charts the correct path.